tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 5, 2012 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
the chinese have always learned to take a long, strategic, because one cannot decide the outcome of anyone issue unless you look in it, in a longer-term your but these two societies result in different approaches now, to deal with each other. and have to deal with it in an evolving situation. now, historians say china is now a rising country, and the other status quote countries similar to germany and england, and let that lead to war, and, therefore, the likelihood is that something like that might occur again.
the first thing, remember, china is not a rising country. china is a country that is turning to what it has always been, namely, a center of asian affairs. but it's inevitable that it will impinge upon the united states. but there are a number of things we need to keep in mind with respect to that. even the country between germany and england was not inevitable, and you can trace many misjudgments that produced a conflict that was not inhibited
of the situation, but be that as it may, germany and england. we know that none of the leaders who started world war i would have done so, would have known what the world would look like four years later. they conduct themselves be driven into conflict on the basis of considerations which in terms of tragedy that they brought about. so, therefore, i think the conflict, a conflict between china and the united states would be a disaster for both countries. and it would be in possible to describe what a victory would look like. and it requires, on both sides,
patience and understanding above all, that they are trying to reach in each country domestic pressures that emphasize disagreements that might arise. we see that in our political campaign in which both campaigns are using language about china, which i think is extremely deplorable. and you see it in the chinese literature, from their strategic channels come in which their strategic analysts are pushing a very nationalistic line. and, indeed, as tradition of time is ideology diminishes, it is the prospect that nationalism
becomes a substitute. many of the issues that arise, of a past, need to overcome a so-called dotted line and the south china sea that was done by south chinese emperor who had never heard of law of the seas because that concept didn't exist many years ago. so the issue of the islands, and there are hundreds of islands, requires in my view first of all separating the notion of freedom of the seas from the issue of sovereignty over the islands. but my colleagues here will be held to give much fuller explanation of the issue.
what i want to say is that both sides have to make up their mind that they are trying to do something that is historically unprecedented. and in a way competing countries recognize that the international system requires a victory of cooperation between, if they are not going to drift into a confrontation which will then split every other country to participate in. each side will be able to list the mistakes that the other side has made, and of course, but the one favorable thing you can say about this challenge is the most nonpartisan foreign policy in america today is the american
administration since 1971 have pursued a centrally, the same course. now, two locations, two president tried to reinvent the policy, and the maximum amount of time it lasted was to use. and then they recognized from experience the necessities of future. so i am very helpful -- hopeful that thi will be continued after all relations with china now our good. there are many grievances on both sides, but the basic objective is recognized by both sides. what we need to do now is to find something on which we
continually cooperate, not just mitigating problems and arrive at something that is done on both sides of the atlantic that engages the best minds of both sides on some common project so that we don't have to read about each other in terms of the literature that we now see on both sides, which describes the other one. as failing or threatening. that's our fundamental challenge. i see jane is looking at me from the front seat, so i would begin by saying that i was asked to speak for 15 minutes to enable you all to be able to say that your present at a historic event. [laughter] >> you have not been present at a historic occasion, but i do want you to leave with the
feeling that it's tough. there are going to be the assessment of the various situations that can clash. we americans have always had the view that we did not want any country to have -- in asia. that remains our view, including the view of those of us who are great advocates of the relationship. the chinese have a few that they can understand the objective, but not wanting to be pursued, primarily military framework. so it's for both sides to recognize that there's some portions of asia in the world which we may not have the same interpretation. but in which we cannot only
coexist but cooperate around projects. and i think peace and stability of the world depends on it. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks to everyone for coming. thanks to all the panelists. [inaudible] >> i'm melissa block. i host all things considered on npr. lots of things dr. kissinger raised i would like to follow-up on. will talk for a while and then to be time for questions from the audience. i encourage you to think of things you'd like to ask. i want to start though with the odd fact of xi jinping. he was missing for two weeks.
he missed appointments with secretary of state and other foreign leaders. no one knew where he was. baby had a heart attack. they get a swimming accident, maybe about that. know when you. in our meetings at all things considered ever discussion that were worthy of abbott and gusto that would seem like where is xi? who? know, xi, not a hu. spent no one could tell us where he was. ambassador roy, you want to take that one of? >> might expand in china is this, traditionally chinese meet did not talk about the personal lives of their leaders. and so if a leader got ill, nothing was reported about it. i remember when li disappeared
in 1995, i think was the spring of 95 for the fall of 1994, and he simply was not there. and there were no reports in the media about what happened to him. it later turned out he probably had a heart attack or a stroke, and in the meeting i had with him a short time before he disappeared, he didn't seem to be behaving quite normally. but this is not unprecedented for a leader to drop out of sight. but in those days people to report on leaders so, therefore, they were either there or they were not. now, the problem now is you not only have a mass media in china with instant access to information, but china is part of the world in which leaders are accountable for where they are. and i think that the people who handle xi's absence simply botched it. they needed to be saying
something, and they weren't in a position to say something eric and that produced a lot of unhelpful speculation, including bizarre stories about coups and things of that sort that no government would want to be suspected of harboring. but cheng, you may have some insight. he may have been with cheng li for all i know flagmac. >> if they now, the rise of social media. >> before answer that question i want to say something, and i have, i want to say a few words to dr. kissinger. not only as a chinese-american, but as when someone who grew up during the cultural revolution, as you emphasize the remarks that generation of leaders will take over power to belong to the cultural revolution generation. for this extraordinary generation that i have part of that, the very name of henry
kissinger embodies wisdom, diplomacy, respect for different cultures, promoting positively hope. hope for an open china that integrates with the outside world. hope for better u.s.-china relationship. so your remark is bringing forth the sentiment that you expressed, what you did. now, the open china to you and president nixon made in early 1970s was not only a turning point in history, but also that the event has changed our lives, the millions of people, millions of chinese, chinese americans and americans. thank you very much, dr. kissinger. [applause] >> now, one of the things you talk about is -- [inaudible] who
have developed a broader division, just issued envision. we have to have a deep understanding of chinese politics, society, behavior, political system, and also it's confirmation. this is, let me come to the question you raised. it's a better question, but i really disappointed not at this point with the chinese leadership, but rather its point with the foreign china communities. and also disappointed with social media. constantly upset. it's fair to say the chinese government said several times the press conference and also said -- [inaudible] that vice president xi was injured in his
bed. so i think that's enough. because more importantly, you know, i was interviewed many, many times by media, and also by business groups, they really offer some, asked me to comment. i say i don't want to comment, there's nothing happen. if something was happening duty to thing. one or more lives would cancel before trips and there also would cancel trip if the assassination of political or stay cold, you also see the signs, the police and other, the security, the military would ask unusual. there's no sign whatsoever. but most importantly it seems like quite better odds that most of the chinese government does not save much. [inaudible] but also ironically because of vulnerability that dr. kissinger mentioned earlier, it creates a
lot of challenges. proverbs, a successor is really big trouble, they will immediately denounce their republic. you cannot cover, it is liability which would further damage for political system. no leaders would dare to do that. usually they will reveal to the public within 12 hours. so this is my take pics i think they should be a lesson force. another -- as china becomes major power they need to follow conventional norms to be more responsive. but on the other hand, in the press conference, he got back injured. transferring his liver in hong kong and also you already paralyzed hathaway's, could not come out. i just wonder, these kind of experts are really well-informed people, this is embarrassing.
>> david? >> i do think there's a serious lesson here, however. aside from the manage, it raised the question of if something were to happen to the designated successor who has been designated for a number of years at this point, what is plan b? what is the constitutional process? what can people have confidence in in terms of continuity of leadership? and so as in acted as all this proves, and i tend to believe it was just a minor health incident, his back, and that was the explanation. but the mere fact that this can have such ramifications tells you something more about the institutionalization of the system. and there i think a lot of thoughts deserve both by china itself and by those who do business. >> let's talk a bit more about this new generation of leaders
coming in called the fifth generation of chinese leaders in the modern age. what do we know about the two men who are presumed to take over as premier and president of china, xi jinping, the a decade younger than hu jintao, about 10 years different xi jinping has a daughter who goes to harvard i read this morning under a pseudonym. dr. kissinger mess and expense by the cultural revolution, and i think xi jinping has talked about that he ate more bitterness than most during that time. what can you tell us. cheng, i know you've written about the sort of different wings of the new generation of leadership that these two men represent. do you want to start? >> i think in finding more points as president, vice president xi refused it and the chinese me what the cultural experience is, that he was a teenager -- and wen jiabao, who is soon to be premier, both were sent to countryside where were farmers were like six years.
the hardship that is kind of really extraordinary difficulty from major cities or small cities to the countryside. very difficult in my experience, through important trade which defined them and world view previous. i can have a few words to that. endurance, adaptability, confidence, sometimes over confidence. i think it's important to know this generation. in many ways, and also later day studying college. this early 1980s was the most liberal period in china's education system. they were really exposed to western ideas. they translate the constitution of development of foreign countries in uk and elsewhere
into chinese. he reads english very well. now, that's really a wonderful opportunity, and, but these also could be the problem it has if we fail to understand that, this is a generation because of their personal experience they don't want to be lectured. they actually will be more, conducive with and get soft approach to talk for cooperation. but you just use force to intimidate them, they will act very first home. i hope that what i said is important. that if we use force, use just a single-minded lecture, we don't solve the knowledge of china, the china experience when i president preval. they will act very strongly that younger generation, hu jintao
generation. i don't like you watched interview. maybe 15 years ago by michael mori interviewed in "60 minutes." this is a remarkable show available online. michael wallis pointed finger at him and said your dick tater. he said several times. he laughed and he said oh, well. but chinese, that's a shame. how could you not react? after many years people so his approach actually was -- actually make michael wallis seemed embarrassed. you do same thing with pushing king and wen jiabao. they will react first on. so we do need to know this kind of mindset, this experience. so that's why harry kissinger, you said early on it so important, defining moment, look for the previous expense, really
shape their behavior. there's a tremendous plume of cooperation. spent dr. kissinger, i think he said expressed in the cultural revolution hardened this generation of leaders. how does that merit out and how they view both domestic policies in china and the relationship to the world? or is that not really a key factor of how they see their role? >> we cannot really know yet how they will conduct themselves in foreign policy, because they are not yet in office. but there have been instances where people, where he felt, china was being criticized, and he made a very sharp response. i've had several conversations with xi and i found him an extraordinary thoughtful person
who raised a number of philosophical questions. the problem they face is, if you look at their own agenda, the things they have stated, they want to do for the next 10 years, you know china will have to go to change it. i think it's unlikely in 10 years the next generation will come into office with exactly the same institutions that exist today. and precisely because everybody knows in china there is a kind of political evolution being discussed every day. this is one reason why i do not
believe that great foreign adventures or confrontations with the united states can be gone their agenda. they know that domestic changes, in the sense of moving part of the population, overcoming the country in which the coast is highly developed and the interior quite undeveloped, in terms of you cannot keep a society -- [inaudible] and in my experience seems to be there's a very, a very conscious of that. but i agree with cheng li, he felt he had to make china acceptable to foreign critics.
xi would not accept that as a necessity. he would defend himself much more assertively. is on the other hand has a long history to go back on, the meetings i've had with him, i found him to be reflected and quite philosophical. spent ambassador roy, let's talk about your time as ambassador in china. soon after tiananmen. >> yes. >> the dynamic then compared with now in terms of how they're heading into the party, the party conference and the overturned, the changeover in leadership, how would you describe what's different now compared to earlier? >> it's very different.
i arrived back in china in 1991, and it was very clear that there was a two line struggle underway within the leadership. you could detect it in the types of terminology that was used by different leaders in talking about particular issues. and it was symbolized by the fact that when deng xiaoping made his famous trip to the southern part of titanic and 72, the central message carried no coverage of the trip and we had to learn about it from a hong kong press and some of the south china newspapers. so china, after the tiananmen events happen, heavy group of leaders gain a stronghold on the leadership. and it wasn't until sons trip,
gradually unraveled this conspiracy of silence around what he was doing, and all of a sudden there was a sharp shift, six months before the party congress to reform and openness. and then at the 14th party congress the conservative group had consolidated the position after 1989 was basically outed from the party and china went on to a strong reform and openness presumption of those policies. now, i think we should learn something from watching this. the first thing is we were in the middle of an election campaign, and candidate bill clinton was comparing beijing to baghdad. and this was right at the time when china was moving from baghdad to paris. maybe i'm overstating the case a little bit, but that's essentially what was happening. i mean, this was a dramatic shift in china, and the u.s.
government paid absolutely no attention to it. it had no impact on the policies of the clinton administration when it took office. and, of course, since i was the american ambassador to china this confronted me with problems with an american government that had one view of china, that china was already moving in a different direction, and that created some contradictions in trying to carry out my instructions faithfully. but i think this time, you have something that goes of that. clearly are the bush eli a fair has exposed that china's political system is not different from others. leaders struggle for power. they have their own ambitions. some succeed, some come crashing down, as in the case of bush eli. so we shouldn't assume that just because china has an authoritarian system of government, that the more jockeying that takes place in a
clinical system is not taking place in china. and this could partly explain why the announcement of party congress was delayed no longer do you have an all powerful legal behind the scenes who could resolve disputes, who can sort of put things in place. now the powerful ambitious competing leaders have to work out their own motives, and that takes time and isn't always successful. but my guess is that they've established a threesome of unity within the leadership going into the party congress and we are likely to see, not confront any major surprises spent as to the minute, mao could give orders, the current leaders had to operate by consensus of least understanding. >> i want to get to cheng li. we deserve from ambassador roy. don't expect surprises from the party congress but should there
be anything which look forward to? are one thing is two days after the election year, so went to this? deliberate timing? should there be anything surprising that emerges from there? might the standing committees smaller and what would that say about china's? >> we were talking about earlier in the context of xi south, certainly had a basket of rumors floating around composition. did it have anything to do with our election? i think china has many competing forces, and when the holding meeting, probably the u.s. is on the side, a minor concern there that may have affected it by a day of two so they could get some idea of what the outcome and the most important relationship in the world was, but fundamentally i think this is out of an intro logic in china, not looking particularly at the united states. my own personal guess is that if you look at the pool the people
that are really eligible to be the next standing committee of the politburo, we may have some difficulty deciding which fish are going to get pulled out of the pond. but i think it's revealing to look at the fish in the pond that the totality of what they are choosing them up, and what we're looking at is a more diverse group of people in terms of their education, business, law, even humanities to some extent. so we're looking at a much broader generation. we are looking at people, we're talking about xi. he has enormous expense along china's coast, most cosmopolitan communities, nose we shall all over the world visiting his city until pixar think we're looking at people quite experienced in the world. so why expect that when we look back in history we are going to say there was a surge of reform with deng xiaoping in 1992 after
tiananmen. then john smith push of china into the world wto explosive growth in china's presence in the world. i think we're going to look at hu jintao as a period of consolidation in many respects, and i look to the next group to really push and tackle for the first time, really since the 1980s, political push. because china's society is fundamentally changed. it has less dominant leaders. it has a more pluralized society, society, and it has resources scattered now among social organizations, corporations that have their own independent power. so i think we're going to see a new push. i don't have vigorous, but in the political direction it and i think we're going to have more cosmopolitan leaders compared to the past. >> for someone to rise to the top of the chinese hierarchy, what would give you the confidence, indicating they
would be pushing maybe in a new direction, as opposed to maintain the status quo which is how they got there? >> look at china's recent history, new generation, new policy. because brought by new vision. economic and political policy, and they want to have their own legacy. i agree with you, my colleagues, that we are not going to see kind of spirit of the party because -- [inaudible] even some people have revelation with them. but also ambassador mentioned case but i think it is a very, very big crisis. people already compare with the yemen to some of my friends in china think it is bigger crisis ever. because the still unfolding. i just read online a couple days ago, i mentioned in lunch --
[inaudible] who is that leader? [inaudible] who is womanizer. dr. kissinger said not just -- it is mao. chairman mao said same thing. this is important because this is a series of crises to it reveals fundamental flaws. how political system allow this kind of ruthless leader, pursue this, all kind of awful power of abuse. the interesting thing is compared 1989 tiananmen and also the crisis chinese economy has not been disrupted in ways like chinese of years ago.
why? is exactly the reason my colleagues mentioned i want to hug several reporters that the importance of such as middle-class, such as legal profession. 1989 the country only had several thousand lawyers but now feature china 600 law school produce more law students. faster than united states, or better, worse. [laughter] commercialize the media and dynamic. and interest group policy all kind of interest groups. none of them existed in 1989. in china. so this provide stabilizing force for peace and transition but party need to transform itself before it too late. yet the series of discussion, lectures, among social groups talk about the legitimacy of tiny spark of how this can have the how it is possible.
[inaudible] so that's the very important lesson. this critical moment the china experience. this conjunction of history. so in a way your question, you know, the leadership, the confidence. in many ways they also sense in a moment of the full ability. but it's unclear whether they will really transform the party because it's very coming in the, you either change it for of tim and. are you change with issues, different life. you should also, again, all these issues, plus china's economy, we haven't talked about, slow down. that was result of the political bottleneck but also further
review the fundamental problem of china system from state of the public, corruption. so it's really big challenge. so for international community like us we are very sensitive. but i'm optimistic like dr. kissinger. i think as country went through all the difficulty, not so much our leaders but society, including some of the rising stars. maybe they're still at the provincial level. they understand what we should do to really change the political system to make it a more transparent and whatnot, more democratic. >> does anybody on the stage envision the kind of transformation of the party that cheng li is partner in the foreseeable future? dr. kissinger, can you mention what cheng li is talking about? >> do i know what? [laughter]
>> the transmission is talking about. if the comments part is really going to transform itself into the overreaching way. >> first of all, all of us have seemed enormous transformations in china in the last 40 years. and especially to see the reform movement of the middle ages. and we shouldn't think of china as a -- [inaudible] as one party state. it's more similar to mexico. i think it will be more transparent. it's legal system will be more predictable, that it has huge assessments to make are all our economies say china should export less and consume more
than any other economic question. it's a huge transformation, and it also has foreign policy implications. because they will be less dependent on globalization, more tied to southeast asian countries. all i'm saying is that yes, i can imagine that transformation. i think that is, and the next 10 years will be extremely complicated, but we must not demand or expect -- [inaudible] which we are most familiar. it will be a chinese version, but it will be i think more transparent. and it will not be achieved without some domestic difficulties. we have to be sensitive to what is emerging.
i think it will be different from what it is not spent ambassador, is there an opportunity -- >> i completely agree with dr. kissinger. stop and think about it. the communist party up through the 16th party congress is through out the window the communist party. it through out the window a fundamental principle of marxism which is class struggle. all of this was done, and most americans didn't even notice it happening. people still talk about china provide a communist party. yes, it's a live in this party but it's not a communist party as we understand communism in the old sense. china now is facing what one -- the premiere of china says is an urgent need for fundamental structural political reform, fundamental structural economic reform in order to be able to do with the social problems generated by china's rapid
growth. why is the premier say this if he doesn't recognize that china's current system, if it doesn't change, is not going to be able to deal successfully with the problems generated by a country that is still remarkably open to the outside world, is growing at a destabilizing rate of growth, even with the declining growth rates at the moment. and which is changing socially and in terms of income levels in a dramatic fashion. so what dr. kissinger was saying, as i understand it is can we should anticipate change, not anticipate no change. but saint when it is going to happen except to what its nature will be, then have to be able to see the future, and i think with the exception perhaps of dr. kissinger, the rest of us are challenged in that area. [laughter] >> david, if the goal is to anticipate that change, what is the role for the united states and what opportunities might
there be there as china continues on the path of some sort of transformation? >> first just on the last topic comes to words. we have the example of taiwan that had the party in charge for many years. and marshall law with a leninist party with the soviet union held -- helped organize, and it essentially moved from the bottom of society to the top gradually come incorporating more elements to society. and it moved from inside the party, enlarging the party, to the society we now see as quite democratic -- democratic but i think the chinese has looked at the mainland, look at that model, and expect to see the party change from within its procedures and its composition which have already changed enormously. from 69 in the last decade to 80 plus million, much more diverse party that you even have some people limit number of them
minister level who are not even members of the party. so i think you're going to get change. now, your question is what the u.s. can do to facilitate it. first of all we have to recognize china's own dynamic and its own internal is so enormous to a chinese natural resting place i think it's a trout to do with its own problems and, therefore, i don't think we should make the diverted attention from getting with its own internal problems to try to confront a more hostile external environment. so continuing to engage, having confining areas of cooperation in areas of energy, the development, for instance, mess nuclear simple energy program under way. we are already cooperate with the chinese. find these areas, keep our markets open, but don't create a more hostile external environment that is absolutely essential.
very important we keep the balance. there's a fine line between balance and provocation to we want to stay well on the side of balance of constructive environment spent dr. kissinger, i was surprised to hear you say that the comments made by both candidates used the term extreme deplorable leverage about china. i know you endorsed mitt romney. have you had that conversation with him? have you said i find your conversation really deplorable? ass. >> i see the advertisements of the two candidates every day are competing with each other on how to deal with the cheating things with china, and both of you cheat as applied to china. >> and trade. >> and trade. and it may be that in china they do not understand, and i am bothered by the fact that
appealing to persons of china, but in my view on china policy is not a secret. it doesn't affect my basic feeling of the candidates spent mitt romney has also talked about maybe doing china as a currency manipulator. would that be productive? >> it would be -- the romney campaign does not check itself. [laughter] spent i will take that for a no. >> i have stated my general vi view. i remember the reagan campaign making statements such i didn't think were adequate to the overall relationship, and
clinton did the same thing. i have confidence that the men in the office, president looking at the realities, will come to the conclusion that i have outlined to my colleagues, and about which they really amazingly -- [inaudible] of people who actually deal with china. there are others who have other views to want to turn this whole thing into a crusade. but they have actually studied china, or dealt with china spent let's do one last lightning round before doing this over to questions on august. go big and so long. giving a timeframe for how long before we see open national
elections and the end of one party state in china. david? >> i don't expect to live to see that day. >> i disagree. i think that the future generation in china will have difficulty understanding the preceding generation went through. i do believe that china will be very rapid pace of medical confrontation in the next 10 years. so 10 years. >> ambassador roy? >> i think i think i'm too pessimistic. [laughter] >> i'm confident that he will live to see. this is reflecting dr. kissinger's optimism about the future. i'm a little more cautious than cheng li in terms of whether
it's 10 years or 15 years. but the pattern in asia has been that countries have been able to sustain rapid economic growth for 40 years have moved from authoritarian systems to representative forms of government without exception in east asia. without exception. we have south korea, taiwan, thailand, indonesia. thailand shows that you can sometimes revert backwards. i date china's period of rapid growth became after the 14th party congress, beginning in 1992. we are only about 20 years into the process. so i think we all already seeing the forces that want a change for represented forms of government operating in china for its operating within the communist party itself at the moment, but sooner or later it will have to spill out in a broader way. and this is independent of the
will of china's leaders. they are generating social forces that they either have to suppress at enormous cost, or they'll have to accommodate. and the question is can they accommodate them under conditions of stability where they can continue growth? and we don't know the answer to that question. but my sense is that china's fifth generation leaders realize this is the big challenge they will be facing. whether it will be they who actually carried china into the promised land, if you will, or the sixth generation leaders, i'm not quite sure about that. i would bet more on the sixth generation leaders, but it could happen earlier. and you can't exclude the area possibly it won't happen the way we are proceeding. leaders can screw up. by china's record has been pretty good at keeping the country on a positive track. >> let me make -- i agree with
what has been said. i think china is moving in that direction, but there is implied in some of these questions and ambiguity that we know the answer to all the questions, and that it is our vision to make the world exactly in the american image. he has conducted himself for 4000 years as the most continuous state. they managed to stagger through it 800 years without assistance from the united states. [laughter] so we should not assume that we know what the answer is. i think the direction is more towards openness, but we also have democratic problems. we also have a problem of how
you reconcile what is conflicting interests. and i think we should be opened for the party china will develop, although not exactly the ones that are familiar to us as a country. we have to learn that when conduct foreign policy you have to deal with interests as well as values, and you have to reconcile the concerns of other countries, with your own concerns. otherwise it would not be possible to build a general global system. that is a natural challenge for united states, no matter which party. >> i want to turn this over to questions. i think, to have someone with a microphone in the audience? one on either side. if you would introduce yourself, tell us who you are and what
organization or school you're with and ask a question. >> my name is eric. my question is that, talk about like transone as the fifth generation. but talk about all the generation, most of the people are appointed by deng xiaoping. so can you talk like a transfer of power has been anointed. your talk about the anointing has basically been finished so we will have new rules and how the situation is the fifth generation comes of generation, do you expect there will be new rules within the party and how the succession will continue to? >> it sounds like angel dynamics within the party itself. cheng li? >> exit question. i think it has changed and is changing. i think it really is motivated
by own vision, own assessments that the previous is kind of blackbox by chinese leaders is coming to an end. therefore, if you reach out to the public for support with kind of cultural revolution by side at how western campaign style, mixed in, maybe you can argue the to premature but, of course, and other leaders doing similar things, ideological and policy agenda. and may be it is taking right approach because of his behavior. and really alienated the homogenates and and acceptance. but i think he says is vitally that difficult to select leader, eventually chinese will open up to find a new source.
of coursesource. of course, not merely one person will vote. it rather the so-called interparty, they are still considering whether they would use it in party congress did not only the 2270 delegates who select the four members, but also the 370 members and committee to vote if they want to select political blow euro. -- political bureau. [inaudible] so when you start to do that, you really on one hand, you change source of legitimacy. you legitimize the future. but if you fail, then also will
be really cause some serious problems for undermine even further a political system. that's why they're so hesitant to adopt that. but they are considering that. there's a part of a reason of the delays. not just about the candidates of the standing committee. in my view they are not reliable because if the user position that the, no one knows. hu jintao does not know. but that's the issue. so i think you're absolutely right. they will change and sources for future leaders will be really quite different. >> i see a lot of fans out. let's go to the side of the room in the back on the right. >> joe, former student of dr. kissinger. i want to ask my old professor whether he is disappointed at all after 40 years of generous engagement from the west we still see the hostility and suspicion of the part of the communist leaders toward the
u.s.? >> i don't, i don't find hostility on the part of chinese leaders. i read a lot of writing of chinese think tanks that expre express, seems suspicion of the united states. i'm not disappointed. i think it's inevitable that you great societies, from such different premises, that that will not be the move. and i'm sure that if we had chinese me, the same question could be asked with respect to
chinese leaders. perhaps even more so. so i think this is a gradual process which can be overcome only by some choice, efforts, with respect to the project and also with projects with which we can engage. mike mentioned entities. it's an environment, nuclear weapons. those are issues that can only be -- [inaudible] in which cooperation between china and united states, that we found consensus? no. but i have participated in many conversations that indicate that
it is possible to have such a dialogue, and that also that the alternative, it's really going to be in my view very similar. >> let's go to the middle with a man in a hat. wait for the mic upon. >> i am with national advisory council south asian affairs. i'm reading dr. kissinger's book on china, and on the paging out of chairman, i since one of the reasons might have been is very close relations with you, and
his 100% agreement on proceeding with everything that you wanted to accomplish on behalf of the total policy that china and u.s. were following at that time. in other words, to get the soviet union's -- [inaudible] towards china. >> dr. kissinger, the question again is -- [inaudible] >> in conversations that occurred after 1973 of having, to be agreeable to the united
established to the prime minister, and the prime minister -- we didn't care. we met the top leadership. we didn't have in mind a separate come and mao any way wanted to have nothing to do with any nuclear discussions with the united states and every time i was raised by other people, he misunderstood and from our point of view. so, but otherwise we now know they regret the -- at the end of
if you commit to the usual type which everybody seemed to agree with everybody, it didn't mean anything coming and he came up with a proposal for that disagreement and list five agreements and of those agreements would mean something. i mention joke was closely intercepted that it never could have happened. he agreed to something, and i think it was more complicated factors including that mao at that moment was confronting the gang of four expectation recognition of its own and he
wanted to ensure the continuity of the revolutionary leadership, and i think those were the principal reasons. >> you are the master on the subject narrowly but as you are speaking they survived under mao for a very long time since the late 20s and 30's and he ran mao early in his career and he lost. i think we have the basic operational code don't get out ahead of the chairman so everything you said resonates with that background. >> i never saw this disagreement joe was different.
>> but there is evidence for whatever reasons including the ones you mentioned that joe was not in mao's fever in his last few years. >> last question in the red jackets. i am a reporter with china center television, and first of all i want to say i'm very glad you take part in the event to meet all these famous experts on the stage and i raise my question in person. here i have a question for dr. kissinger. as we know the u.s. and china are facing conditions. i'm wondering, the current asia rebalancing policy after the americas presidential election, how likely the current age of rebalancing policy will be carried out? and how will that affect the
u.s.-china relationship? thank you. >> the including of american publishing reflect the reassessment of american priorities and is not directed against any particular country because the withdrawal from afghanistan was inevitable in the reassessment of the deployments. i would regret if they were put into largely military terms, and i don't believe that that is the
intention of the administration. the opinion has been expressed very much in military terms, but the fundamental logic it should be to achieve a balanced america operate in asia on the economic and political objectives that china recognizes asia shouldn't be hegemony all and i believe that this is achievable and i wouldn't write the view primarily in military terms. >> just a follow-up question. i'm wondering in the future how
should china, japan and the u.s. manage their relationship in this region given the possible impact of asia rebalancing policy? thank you. dr. kissinger, do you want to follow-up on matt? >> the ideal outcome would take a long time would be if the country didn't look at that relationship primarily as balancing if the relationship develops in the development that withdraws the atlantic this will be more difficult because the asian countries still came as
rivals to a degree in europe any longer, so there is of course a balancing element involved. the department should be served to the greatest extent possible and should be superseded to the greatest extent possible by the efforts this has to be a gradual process. this is why they have to be intense consultations and not only about grievances but consultations about objectives and the several of administration's. a democrat and republican they
have attempted to do it and i believe this administration has attempted to do this, and i am confident that whoever wins in november may attempt to do it. we may make mistakes in the objective. >> i would like to make room for one more question if we can on the right on the aisle. >> thank you. my question is for dr. kissinger. the united states transferred the administration to japan in the 1970's and took no position on the issue related to the secretary at that time, could
decided to go. i didn't approach it from the point of view that this was the tune of the model to the existing models and reasonable for what is going on and was absolutely not an aspect of the power struggle that many have taken place in china. i try to educate myself but i didn't even know there was a power structure. [laughter]
agreement that was made by the japanese which is the control to leave matters of state, and that's the aspect i focus on the involvement that i remember in formulating a conclusion that was reached between japan and china and china and japan return to the monopoly. [laughter] one in which the united states would take a position on sovereignty or any other aspect.
i also want to say one thing. a lot of that is your good to me because i've had the dramatic experiences that the people on my left here to keep the thinking on china alive and to provide for which the occasional policy maker can draw those of us that have engaged in policy could not have done whatever was done if it were not for a group of dedicated people to keep studying it when it gets more and more complicated. >> i think we will have to leave it there. thank you, dr. kissinger, ambassador and li cheng.
this is the first church in brownswick maine, and its significance to the story of uncle tom's kavanagh is a began here. in this pew number 23 that harriet beecher stowe, by her account, salt visions of uncle tom being would to death. uncle tom as you know is the title character, the hero of her 1852 novel, "uncle tom's kevin."
it was written as a protest novel to the slave law which mandated and 1850's that anyone in the north including new england wealthy abolitionists lift, if anyone in the northwest to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be in prison or fined for breaking the law, and this was seen as a kind of compromise between the north and the south to avoid the war, so that is a part of what the novel was trying to do is say listen, i'm a person, harriet beecher slow debate cousteau and i am against slavery as much as new england, and it is my right to help a slave who finds him or herself. we have the right to do that. we are not a slave state. we should be able to practice our law as we see fit.
and number of latino and african-american community leaders warned earlier this week that the republican party will become marginalized if it continues to ignore issues that are important to minority voters. this happened at the african american civil war museum here in washington. speakers including national council black women president faye williams, author lenny mcallister discuss the vote to suppress through voter i.d. laws popping up around the country. on the eve of the first presidential debate of 2012, our
focus will be timely and important, and that is to discuss and highlight the impact of minorities and women on the 2012 presidential and legislative elections. tonight's inaugural event is being held before the first presidential debate between president barack obama and governor mitt romney. tonight's town hall meeting provides us with a unique and strategic opportunity to put our important and crucial minority vote front and center because this is about us, our families, our communities. it's about our future. most of you know that about 35 states have reportedly passed measures that would restrict the right to vote, particularly among black and hispanic voters. probably many of you have heard today the state of pennsylvania struck down. so these measures could far as many as 5 million potential
voters in casting your vote on who will lead the country for the next four years. the longer-term effect of this could severely impact how our country moves forward. the impact could be just as significant as the well-known brown v. board of education. the landmark supreme court case in which they declared the state law establishing separate public schools for black and white students was unconstitutional. some seem to think that one of the candidates, and i won't name which one stands for turning black back the clock in many ways so the minority voter participation will play an integral role in picking the winner of this year's presidential election. the town hall meeting tonight will discuss who and why the minority voter participation and awareness can bring power to the previously disenfranchised racial and ethnic minority. the moderator of tonight's meeting is none other than
roland martin. you heard him on cnn and you've heard him on that on joyner morning show. he's a national award winning journalist and is also in author, commentator for the cable network where he hosts washington watch with roland martin and a cnn analyst appearing on a variety of the network shows. i'm certainly everyone here has seen or heard of roland martin. so without further ado i give you the moderator, mr. roland martin. [applause] >> thank so much. i'm glad to be here. i want to get right to it so we don't hold your too long and also welcome other folks who are watching on line as well as all of you. i'm sure you are taxing or tweeting. you can tell folks if they go to www.brownv2012.com they can actually watch this conversation live online. i want to first introduced the panel.
the national council of la raza. second next to her is estuardo rodriguez on hispanic issue and a partner with a group. next to his faye williams, president of the national council of black women. to her left is lenny mcallister author of get right with lenny mcallister. next to lenny we have brent wilkes way down there. sorry. all right then. we have hector sanchez, executive director labor council for latin american. he has a long business time. next to him we have ron busby for the u.s. chamber of commerce. i know ron is a good thing. next to him is alex with the
hispanic media coalition, and where hector should become a we have brent wilkes, national executive director, league of united latin american citizens, and putting us up on the end there, they changed it on me, let me get here. make sure i have this right because we did some switching appeared. i'm just been to make them introduce themselves. go right ahead. >> clark crook-castan, u.s.-mexico chamber of commerce. >> there we go. we are not way to look all those things. let's get right to it. i want to go right to the news of the day. a couple things jump out. the decision in pennsylvania not requiring a voter i.d.. the court said if you're going to indexed fifa effect next year but not enough time this year
what do you think the impact will be in terms of november not just presidential election but all the other races as well as the decision followed on the heel of the texas voter i.d. law as well as some others across the country. anybody can jump in. lenny? >> we were talking about this behind stage. thank be devotee for coming. we had a chance to talk about the presidential race and if you look at the polls between governor romney and obama it looks as though pennsylvania once again is going to be blue and the democrats will win the top of the tick but it's interesting you mention the statewide race because you see a lot in pennsylvania that are going to look at the republican run legislature and say you will not private pass this law, you got through march, tried to jam us through the courts, you were hoping you would get it into the court to stay in effect for 2012. now that it's been struck down, you may have and in power and invigorated voting base particularly in philadelphia and pittsburgh where the majority of the blue power of the state is
based, so you may see an actual legislature not necessarily the presidential race to be affected but the state legislature now from being republican to democratic which would lead to having a republican governor and a democratic legislature for the next two years going into their gubernatorial race and that is what is interesting it's not just the top of the stick to the to to declare this is going to have an effect. >> we saw what happened in pennsylvania where the legislature said they were passing a law to combat voter fraud, yet they filed documents with the state the stated they had no proof of voter fraud, no survey had been done and if the voter i.d. law was put into effect even in november there would be no guarantee the stop the level of the voter fraud. then of course you had the leader in pennsylvania who said on tape very clearly that because of the voter idea that would guarantee mitt romney win.
>> i like to jump in on that because the vote friday suppression legislation that went across the country would follow the same model of the anti-immigrant legislation. they were copycats. as part of a longer campaign to support specifically the black and hispanic voters and you saw many of these bills just thrown out there without any study done behind. how many cases do you have? and now we find only in some cases like pennsylvania some good news that there are others out there. >> i see this as a respite on the path of the communities are on it, and it reminds me of the montgomery march earlier this year when the african-american and latino community came together on these issues you mentioned, voting rights and immigrant rights because it is true many of the legislators that have advanced the voter
restriction law are the same that were advancing the anti-immigrant latino law and i think that this decision is great. it is a signal to the communities of what happens when we work together. not only from the litigation strategy but there is energy on the ground in pennsylvania of communities working together to educate voters about what's been going on and get them ready to read and the same time for things to come. so for me the decision sends a signal that those who care and talk about the protection of the integrity of the electoral system i don't talk about how to allow a free eligible american to vote and not to make it more difficult. >> i want to ask you this question that sets up the next piece as well which is how do african-americans and hispanics to get whites to also understand the variety law affects a
segment of the population? young folks critical of the group and in some states they pass the law that says you can't use a student i.d. to vote you have to get a state ied. that's not just black and hispanic but 20% of elderly impacted by such as well. that is not just black and hispanic as well but unfortunately where you see the folks fighting suppression and the wall have to be black and hispanic. >> you're absolutely right. a lot of them to realize this. they don't want the seniors to vote because they believe they won't be voting for them and so the voters oppression effort has been one not just based on anybody that's going to vote for the other party, and i do agree there's a lot of enthusiasm now. there's still local concerns. number one they've taken a lot of our energy throughout the fall and focused on the voter
suppression across the country and in pennsylvania. >> as opposed to registering people to vote. >> the same resources that we have, and number two, they are saying they can ask and there will be all this confusion. they can ask for the idea but they still allow the vote and the interpretation of how that is right place at the grass-roots level is something we have a lot of concern about. >> which means are any of your group's getting people to operate as watchers in the critical states to make sure that if that happens they will say i'm sorry you don't actually have to have the ideal vote. >> [inaudible] today i was having my coffee with the senate and told me what
a beautiful scene -- >> the book on president lyndon baines johnson one of the three books -- >> in the context and the momentum starts by describing in the south with an african-american brothers and sisters have to go through just to vote. people die and put their lives on the line, everything just to get the possibility to vote. today almost 50 years or more we are going back black and brown people. it's very interesting to have more strategic conversations between the communities.
they would be one of my closest friends fighting in the strike with dr. king at the time and we were having this conversation it's not something new but we can take a look at a new level especially when the communities are facing the biggest challenges in the nation and the highest levels of debt and employment and will economic situations so the momentum of having the town hall meeting is unique and the strategic approach of the background of a we need to be very smart about. >> who thinks this is a precursor to get the voting rights act especially section 5 out out lot? >> keeping with what frannie lou
hamer said years ago i been sick and tired all of my life but now i'm tired of being sick and tired. that is where we are but this is going to force all of us to be more actively involved and see that freedom is a continuing theme you've got to continue to work on it and just because we have achieved their rights years ago to the challenges of our brothers and sisters who gave the ultimate, many of them paid the ultimate price i think this is going to motivate a lot of people to get involved this year to be the watchers and volunteers and get more people out to register and vote and see that it doesn't and just being registered to vote but you've got to get them out. i read somewhere that some 50,000 latinos turn 18 every single month. imagine the impact that would have on voting pin the energy and believe we can make a difference sometimes when we see the wall going down in texas and some parts of the florida law and the one in pennsylvania
that's going to give the people more energy and believe that there are some ferre people in our system come in our country and they will want to help us and that would include many whites, too. >> in 2008 our communities really got engaged. we got motivated, and i think for many of us it was the first time voting and we talked a lot about change and we voted for change and we say that we were behind that change and it happens but it takes time. this election is more about guarding the change. i think 2008 was changing of the guards. 2012 was more reflective of guarding the change and i think as a business organization we sometimes look at it from just the individuals but from our perspective we will get it from many of our communities based upon small business owners and a
lot of their rights and the bills that are being looked at and passed are affecting the community's more so than the counterparts of the republican party. >> i would like to go back to the original question. we've got blacks and browns that are going to be very enthusiastic about this, but we can't -- we've got to go to the decent folks up there to look at the same things we are looking at and say this is not right. we need to vote for the candidate that is going to do right by all of us and that particular is white and its older so we've got to do what we have always done one on one grassroots while at the same time making sure all of the stories go to the press, the press know about them. they were hankering with these folks will want to convince and have to act as one.
>> there's no question section 5 is going to be challenged in the supreme court and the voting rights act is very much in jeopardy but i don't think that the work they are doing now is helpful to their case because basically what's going to win the day on section five is based on is there evidence taking place right now. i literally had a conversation with a friend of mine that is a conservative, and you or providing the evidence for the court to say wait a minute your argument is that thing happened 40 years ago and now the evidence says it happened 40 days ago. >> they accept the gun license id which is shocking how blatant you can be. where is the outreach? as organizations we have
lawsuits but the larger of rage that should be there when you are clear as to who you are trying to get preference to. >> rahm talked about the notion of change and which interesting to me and i'm articulating this talking with folks at the white house and others the issue when you see change you could be in this room and talk about hope and change or whatever and there can be 100 different ideas about what that is and after two or three years half of the room can say i got when i wanted, and the other half -- i didn't get what i wanted, and the problem is to me that was a great campaign slogan. it works because anybody could say this is my hope and change, but the problem is when you don't define it clearly you have people who say i didn't get what i was looking for. so, how do you see the specific
asking americans and hispanics let's say over the next month make it clear and defined this is for us what the issues are when we say change. >> i had a professor once upon a time at vanderbilt, and he pointed out that there is only one constant in life and that this change, and therefore, changes going to happen whether we like it or not. if you're conservative chances your on the wrong side of it. if you're a liberal, you will probably be disappointed because you are too far ahead of it. whether you like it or not, it's going to happen. how it's going to happen and the affect different groups is anybody's guess at this point. but i would like to put in a
plug for the chamber's so we represent businesses, u.s. businesses in mexico, and u.s. businesses and people say what mexican business is in the u.s.? well, things like major u.s. companies are often either owned outright or partially owned by mexican companies. this has happened since we had nafta and the north american free trade agreement sort of open things up for us and we had mr. carlos in mexico who owns and runs the giant, but he also has a huge stake in "the new york times".
things have changed in the u.s. and what i wanted to say was this issue of registration of voters and what kind of ivies you should use strangely enough we should look to a -- something that i would call mexican technology. the recent election in mexico, everybody voted. nobody asked you whether you were allowed to vote, registered to vote. the only way to vote was to have the registration card from the national voter registration office. that was given to everybody across the country. that isn't your driver's license. you're driver's license comes from each state like it does in the u.s., but the voter registration card comes from the federal mexican government, and it is a different series of
proof you need to prove that you are a mexican citizen and that's it. they don't care how we were going to vote or where you are going to vote from. you get a card, it has your photograph and also has your fingerprints so there are no faking at the same time. it is a rather high-tech card, but it's a given out by the federal electoral commission so this is something we should think that for the future. >> again what a lot of people don't understand is that there is no federal standard. although you might have a presidential election in the congressional races they are still governed by the state standards and then once you look at the state standard, then you have county standards. that's why in ohio you have some counties they say they've
extended the early voting hours in the republican leaning counties and limit the leaning counties because of those left up to the county then it gets into the issue of some people have electronic ballasts and that is part of the problem in the united states when it comes to the voting is we literally have with far too many standards there is no consistency when it comes from going one locale to the next. >> i just want to mention on your comment states' rights. wouldn't abraham lincoln be somewhat surprised to see that his party is supporting states' rights over national rights? it's rather strange. >> many of the dixiecrats' would
think it was strange. >> what should that look like in one's mind or the next few years? it's an opportunity to look at the voter i.d. loss situation controversy as an opportunity to learn more about the political system and get more politically savvy. you look to the voter i.d. law and ask yourself is this about racism or laziness. my party has not engaged minorities for 40 to 50 years now so rather than going and engaging the communities some have been what is the better way to make sure we can guarantee some victories? is it engaging in the communities in the big races were more along the lines we tended to come out and vote. if we can understand what that means and that there's a segment of politicians that take the vote for granted that we are going to support them regardless and pushed research and policies
based on the current paradigm there's an opportunity to look at this and say we need responsiveness for both parties we also need the democrats to be more responsive as well so that moving forward the laziness we see nor can we talk about people actually in office and not on the campaign trail. >> the cnn poll cannot today. there was another done by the group last week that showed that latinos are pulling about 70% support of the president where african-americans are pulling at about 94, 95% of the president. who believes it is a danger for of minority groups to pole with those numbers does that hurt the
ability to negotiate with the other side if they are in power in the federal or the state level. >> i completely agree with my panelist here i think it is in the best interest of the communities to ensure that both parties have the necessity to fight for a vote because that means regardless of party people are going to have to be responsive to their constituents. let's face it the integrity of the system shouldn't be a polonized partisan debate. we should make sure everybody cares to make sure they are doing the right thing, and voting is the same thing. what i would say about pulling right now is oftentimes people take a slice in time like right now the percentage of people supporting the candidate over the other two ss that is static cling with the communities are going to be. you said it very well.
if you have one party or a set of candidates who are not reaching out to the communities who are not taking positions on issues that energize and matter to the community, then it is a result of where you're going to see the support from the voters and put it the other way which is, you know, this community is only going to vote this way regardless. no, the voters are not being given a real choice, and we want both parties to fight. we don't want to be taken by granted by one or the other. not just the community and to the country as a whole loses when we get polarized in that way we need to create an environment where they are pushed to have to respond to these issues and work together as opposed to making political speeches. >> i would jump in here and then
also i want you to answer this question because when you hear the rhetoric as to why the dream act didn't pass in 2010, the senator laid the blame to be completed at the feet of republicans. if it was five democrats who didn't vote for the treen act and the had 55 votes, had those five voted the dream act passes, so why do you believe democrats haven't been sufficiently taken to task for that and is that a perfect example of the party to hear the issue that we care about as opposed to the letter in front of or behind our name. >> such an important question. - democrats need to start playing defense. it's been a pretty good it could
have done. on the header hand, and again, this is a nonpartisan organization in the way they have to be seen and it is an acceptable skepticism the republicans are reaching but in other issues of life every single piece of legislation and the nation. on the collective bargaining come from republican. on education etc., and we can go into all of these that we need to be aggressive with both sides in the case this wasn't a priority and they were willing to spend the capitol on the issue. at a time that we are facing shock it's a unique economic crisis we need smart economic policies. on immigration reform it's a
smart economic policy. it to grow one of the benefits of an immigration reform is the center for the economic that two weeks ago we released the report were the benefits of having the dream act passed so we start playing the politics and we need to be practical. >> i wanted to say that and i wanted to quote my ancestors because they almost always were right. dr. martin luther king said the way the we get a floating platform that would transform america is fourth latinos and blacks and poor white people to get together. now come and learn to work with one another. i would add women to that. of course we had a good group of women this year hopefully that they would be voting for what they want but i think each of our groups must understand that we cannot get all of what we want unless we help someone else get what they want. and i think that leads to our
working together not just this year but also starting to stress the choice for 2016 when, you know, maybe we want someone else to be president of the united states or to change the people in the senate who don't always vote for our benefit. we usually wait until the last minute and then we start forming the tables and come together. we have got to get away from that. we have many things in common. you were talking about the dream act, for example. it doesn't hurt me. i want my brothers and sisters to have the dream act but i also want them to understand there are things i want as a woman as an african-american i want an african-american woman on the supreme court. we need to start talking and they versing with each other. what can i help you get and then i think we will get where we want to go. >> you mentioned of the latin decisions in the poll that they came up with that shows that
latinos are overwhelmingly fond of presidents and not fond of the of their party. it's really what it comes down to. it isn't that one party is so great over the other. it is that we see the downside of one particular party which has been very consistent in its message of hate in terms of immigration and the latino community as a whole. so it isn't like we have a great choice here. how can we vote for this party that we know is going to take us down to a place that we don't want to be? so the choice is becoming fear as we go along. especially the other candidate keeps saying things like 40% and the population think of themselves as victims. that means we are all victims. >> i've got a good one that i want you to answer. it's interesting.
she said when we come back and let 2016 who we vote for, i believe part of the problem when we talk about coalition building is that we are only a thinking in terms of every four years. what i mean by that is one of the reasons many of these voter i.d. laws our past is because folks did not understand the implications of the 2010 election on the state. and even now folks are talking about all of the energy focused on president obama, mitt romney, but so many people were outraged with the trayvon martin but those that chose not to charge zimmerman or elective. so most of the issues that affect people every day our local issues, but i believe national organizations put so much emphasis on the top of the
tickets they are ignoring lionel state gubernatorial city council, county commissioner, all of those down ballot races coming and when you talk about prison industrial complex and hispanics being in prison, guess what, those are charging people, and so speak to how you educate your constituents to understand the race is never yet in many cases even more so than the top of the ticket. >> it's also different states. if you look at the current contract, and you complain about the extremism in the republican party or the carvel launch support by the minorities of the democratic party, you automatically self gerrymander the country and self gerrymander the districts. william transpiring is yes you can get lost in pennsylvania but you're giving a bunch of
carolina sue if you are latino wins of carolina, you still have a problem. it's not wait to turn blue any time soon. >> and they live in the southern states to talk about mississippi, alabama, georgia, tennessee, arkansas, louisiana and the red states. >> you have to change the paradox and make sure both are fighting and we are not just looking through the prism of race. obviously it is a racial component to some of this but let's be clear to responding to the tea party because those are the folks that have been driving the folks and driving the money and the message, so they are going to be responsive to the people that are the loudest and they are going to stay away from the people defining this and the same thing as the democratic party. there's a reason you seen the war on women and latinos and labor in 2012 because those are the groups within the democratic base that drive the vote and drive the money and the messages. so, we as communities have to be savvy with regards to how we
play the game so we don't just have one party fighting for that preceded the other parties fighting against regardless of what side of the ogle that you are on a. >> let me just say i think that this is certainly a danger to the minority communities if one party doesn't even attempt to court the vote but on the other hand i think it is a big danger for the party if they look at the changing demographics of the nation and they realize they are having this pnac overwhelmingly for the other party this is a threat to the republican party's future, and we were just looking at some stats that said even texas could be quickly going towards a blue or purple state. when that happens, the republican party is pretty much in serious trouble. >> born and raised in texas and still have a home in texas, and it's very interesting the
dynamics there. and i do think texas first of all right now in texas there isn't a single democrat elected statewide in the state used to be all democrats statewide. texas is probably 2e election cycles away because frankly you have to get those folks that are of voting age. but you are seeing the inroads of dallas county, harris county, some of the races with what is happening in san antonio. >> you mentioned the perspective of change, and i think that our communities have been very reactive and voting for the african-american president and said okay, our job is done mr. president, look out for us. other communities, and let's be very open about it. the gay and lesbian community were very proactive about their agenda. they put it on the table and their voice was heard and this administration stepped up to the plate either for or against it
and their agenda is being addressed. >> the actually study the african-american way to drive the legislation with the first senator in the movement and say okay as a blueprint now let's take the amount of resources that we have and you put that with voting now you have different results. >> we need to go back to that same model and make sure that we implement that in the next term. >> i want anybody to jump in and answer this. and that is let's say for the president and for democrats holds up, 95% of folks hold up. are you going to see african-americans and hispanics make it clear they have an inside and outside game and that is you have the folks on the inside that are saying we are
working with you and then you have the external forces on the outside who are also pushing as well to actually get what you want, otherwise you risk folks saying no, let's not have an external game. old you are left with is an internal gain and they can simply say you don't necessarily have to address it. that is the danger i believe when it comes to getting what you want and desire. >> i think every time you put all of your eggs in one basket there is a danger they are going to get broken that i would also disagree that that is what has happened. i think the last election was a historic election that energized many folks and for very legitimate reasons because of the need for change. but i also think that there has been pressure at the community level for the elected officials to do better and to be more responsive. the question is whether we have enough power in the communities to get them to respond as quickly as the need to.
when it comes to latinos, it's very clear that our electoral influence is growing. we need to close the gap, and for us a piece of that is voter registration. but i do think that there is an amount of pressure. the other thing that is important is when i heard 2016, the reality is what do we do starting on november 7th? because it doesn't matter who wins if they are not held accountable and we found plenty of evidence on that and it's easy because, you know, you are not being held accountable when you are going to go to the squeaky wheel. i do think there is a fair amount of work happening but the challenge for us is look at our communities are struggling day in and day out to make a living and keep a roof over their heads and keep employed so it is up to us to figure out how to create more opportunities for people to engage, and it really upsets me
when i hear the context of the electorate. our communities are not apathetic. our communities are resilient. people are working tired of the every day. they are concentrating on surviving. so, we need to figure out how to make participation and create the channels that make it more accessible, but it's not about apathy, it's about creating the opportunity to see yourself be part of that change and making it happen, and its gradual. ..
>> i think that one of the point of opportunity for black people in america is we need to push the history maker to be the star a little more for us over the next four years. i think we are a little tentative as a community to do that because you go from slavery to the first black president. it's only been 150 years. you think about the journey. that's amazing to go from chattel slavery to the leader of the free world within 150 years. we are only 50 years away from jim crow. i think the black community is more tentative to push the way i think we need to if this president gets reelected. >> i think you're right. we are pushed from the inside more than from the outside. and another four years i think we would tend to push more from the outside. you talked earlier --
>> another four years? >> the next four years. the one following -- >> you said four more years. >> no, no. [laughter] spent we have concentrated -- >> a big difference. >> right. you talked about our probably thinking more in terms of national elections then those. it's been a matter of resources. to use the national congress of black women has been organizing over these three years, as we only had maybe 20 or less chapters three years ago, four years ago. we have 100 no. we are more equipped to work on the local level and we have many black women that we're pushing in local and congressional elections. >> i want to bring up what the spring marches we saw 2006. i moderated an event, i think alice, your group, media folks in las vegas.
and i pushed them and i challenged them on the notion in terms of did latinos take advantage of the millions of folks who were marching across the country? and i made the argument and took about an hour for folks to go okay fine, we will concede your point, that unless it out of that was you can have djs champion an issue. you can have people turning out, but if you do not have a sophisticated political infrastructure to take the boots on the ground and translate that into public policy, all you end up with our massive marches. and so, am a latino, hispanic standpoint give me perspective what has happened in the last six years to understand that it can't just be a million folks turn out in less you have a plan the day after the march. hector, go ahead. >> let me make -- marching,
representing central element of community-based and i think there's been a very unique evolution in the latino community to where it's been much more involved. it really makes me happy now that we are running with a bunch of organizations, at the table to really see that at times when the latino community does attack, does not forget the hate crimes over the last 45 years but at a time when we're under attack it's very clear that latinos are going to vote. we would be much more engaged. we are already much more engaging and civic participation and i think those marches were a central element of asking much more involved in maturing us. but we need to be honest on immigration. as a nation we are hypocritical nation, a nation of immigration. it's time to stop blaming india
for the issue of immigration. 12 million undocumented workers is the most powerful nation in the world is not a mistake. it is public policy. we need to grow as a nation, take responsibility as a nation, imposition of nafta come and mexico, the countryside, increasing immigration 65% after nafta. addiction to cheap labor. on the issue of immigration we need to change, we need to grow up, and the marches were central to push to where we are today. >> i also want to remind we talk of immigration come you also deal with people of african descent, talk about haitian, bermuda, west indies, africa's will. and i think for me part of the communication problem for folks who have been leading this immigration discussion, they are not articulating that enough to say hey, don't just make this a
latino thing. it goes beyond -- of course you can't forget the irish. [laughter] >> i want a house under in -- i want alex to jump in here. >> we evolved as a community and then we had millions of people in chicago and los angeles come in new york, all over the country. we didn't have the infrastructure to be able to consolidate to what we were doing to be effective. you spoke a moment ago about insider, outsider game. we have all been through that no. we know we've got to the people on the inside to grab have people on the outside. pushing the insiders in getting information from insiders so we can be more and more effective at all times. so it's like anything else. we evolved. there's an evolution to these kinds of things we're leadership, leadership was
there. we just didn't know how to put all together. connoisseurs, if you will, about forging alliances with other people and other organizations. and why they work. just imagine people of color, 33% of the u.s. population. asia-pacific americans, native americans, african-americans and latinos, 33%. that's a lot of soap to go by. and what we need to do now is commercialized it into something that is good for us all politically. >> go ahead. >> we may not be able to elect someone now but we certainly can prevent someone from being elected, and that means like what we do now where we can prevent someone from being elected who is worse for us, and we know that. in terms of the brother mentioned the dream act, isaac we need a real education on the d.r.e.a.m. act. it's really tough but it's not going to be easy for people to become citizens. they got to go through a lot of hoops to do that.
it's going to benefit us when it happens because that's what we can draw from or the military. many immigrants are wanted to go into the military. we can help reach that education level that the president wanted to be number one by 2020. there's so many ways in which that d.r.e.a.m. act will help us him and the young people who would be taking advantage of the d.r.e.a.m. act are not getting it free. we have to move towards what we know the truth, we have to speak about it. that's the name of my new book, the truth shall set you free. >> there's a debate coming up tomorrow night. before i get to the issues i want to deal with all of you and the moderators. we've had lots of discussions. in fact, at no diversity among the moderators come and the debate commission, one of the co-chairs came up today and said, first of all, don't blame us. you need to blame the networks
because they aren't providing opportunities for us to pick from a diverse group of people. when you look at broadcasters and cable news today, virtual whitewash. and the reality is you are not come as a nation is changing, i've said before and i'll say it again, that television is the last bastion, because when you begin to change a television looks you to accept the changing demographics. and so, what are you doing, what are you saying when it comes to who you are seeing as show hosts our folks are producing areas shows? because if they don't look like changing america, i think you'll continue to get the product that you see. and trust me i've been one of the voices since i've been on cnn saying, surely we can find more than one or two hispanic and black commentators. if they got 10 or 12 white folks
out there commentating, we can do better than having maybe just one hispanic, one african-american. anybody can show been. >> i try my best to do it, is not a boxing just a political standpoint or you being a journalist, et cetera. not be afraid to talk about being black when you're on there. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> black suit, black shoes, black socks spirit and that's what you need to do when you on these networks and advocating for folks because it's not just on by the issues from a clinical standpoint or from an issue standpoint. you have to show the whole as to -- holistic aspects of who you are. the network may not see or the audience may not see, don't be afraid to say what needs to be done but as you well know, many of us know, it's live television. what comes out of your mouth is nothing they can do about. it's an opportunity to break the ice and, therefore, get the conversation going. we have those opportunities, we
need to continue to take advantage of that, speaker probably, speak eloquently so that it's out there people are not ashamed of putting in the facts. >> i was sitting there looking at the whole panel and seriously, 20 minutes ago i said i need somebody to explain to me why i have not seen nearly all of you on television. now, folks might see you on cnn español, but my deal is i need to see you on right your cnn. so speak to that in terms of why organizations, should be pressing as hard as they can by saying don't come up with excuse we can find them. they exist but you don't want to promote it. >> right. there's a difficulty there because the reality is, my spanish has gotten better and better over the last 30 or 40 years. [laughter] and it's amazing. now are not only looking at cnn asp annual, but fox, there's a
number of other -- [inaudible] that's right. just a months rent. no one is watching, right? >> just around the world, go ahead. >> i had a conversation with and among from an organization that was me with a couple of cable news folks who said who do you have? who is your spanish, hispanic, on your cable news broadcaster and they said well, we are trying and getting estuardo rodriguez up there. and i thought i have got a call from you for a month. they will throw out whatever name they have. to say we're talking to people. but it speaks louder than words. at some point is going to come to the congregation where there's some great people on there but there are so many more
with african-americans and hispanics. >> put some of that blame or responsibility on the parties themselves. sometimes i think -- >> the parties being? >> the democratic party. to say you know what, we want an african-american to host our motley. i don't think that's outside the scope of reality. but sometimes our own parties don't want to rock the boat. they don't want to -- >> i don't think a party is going to go. because i don't think a party a very will perceive that as a primary concern. that typically has been the province of media related organizations, external groups as opposed to party. because then he gets into all well, you already handpicked somebody, now take inside whatever. now there's pushback. >> we usually have a thing that is our responsibility to reach back and bring others along. now i know that some people are kind of tentatively into
position, but we need to see those who are african-americans, those who are latino who are on bringing a people like us on to be on their shows, to present ourselves. and i think we could be seeing it that way. i have often had white women, head of white women's groups call me to say a black anchor called them and they said, you should talk to someone else. that shouldn't have to happen but it does. >> keep in mind though, look, i've been on, doing the senseless 14. i will be 44 next month so the last 30 years. the realities, in television the anchor is not making a call. that's why made a point about the executive producers, associate producers. because reality is that poker is the sighting in many cases who gets on. >> the naacp, asia-pacific
american media coalition, a national latino media council, signed a memorandum of understanding memorandum with abc, nbc, cbs and fox. there was about we needed to know he was working in front of camera and he was working in back of camera and entertainment sphere. we have since then gone out also to the news parts of -- has been progress? yes. incremental. we don't have a choice but to push and push harder because of what came out of your. we can anecdotally already knew -- this is a report from latin decisions. and what he did, he interviewed 900 people on what they thought, not latino, what they thought about latinos and on another part of it 3000 people on what they thought about latinos. they were all white people. what they thought, coincided
with what news they were looking at. we put energy and in there. we put television news. with the radio and we also put journalism. if they were young and new latinos, they tend to have a good attitude about latinos. if they were older and watching fox news they didn't think very highly of us. and for those things they didn't think highly of? that were not patriotic, that we are not intelligent, we're taking jobs away from americans, other americans. that 30% of them thought that 50% or more of latinos were here without documentation. we are 55 million in this country strong and show the latino here in this country. and 11, 12 million supposedly are here without documentation. that sure as hell is not 50% of the population that is here
without documentation. but these are the kinds of things that studies like this bring out, studies that can be duplicated by any government agency. and they have not worked. the work is black and white. carriages. this is the proof, that we cannot afford to continue to have lack of participation by latinos and other people of color. because what we do, it costs us. it costs us in terms of policy come in terms of jobs, in terms of every activity under the world. >> i think he's right. this is a very critical, for lack of diversity on tv. especially the news is was primarily responsible we think of lack of province on issues. we're not getting a fair shake in the media. at all. and i think one of the things, if you ask about the insider game, outsider came from we're starting to get smarter as well on the outsider part of comcast advisory board.
and we now have got down to the point where we go over all the diversity numbers, every quarter. we look at the shows they are putting on. so we're working hard to try to do this the hardware which his company by company, show by show to try to get more diversity. but we -- you talked about the margins. i was in phoenix women's 100,000 latinos marching downtown. nearby there was a stadium that google 20,000 people in 1000 people with sheriff joe arpaio. was the story that night on tv? it was the sort of a joe arpaio and nobody talked about about the 5000 latinos marching on city hall in phoenix. i just think that's a problem because of the way the media covers our community right now. >> get your questions ready. let me come to you with your questions. so be ready. any long statement, i will teach you with the microphone. >> my feeling is that
unfortunately if you want to watch news and get real coverage, you have to go to cnn in español, bbc, et cetera. why? because they will actually give you the story behind the soundbite. they don't just stay like most of the major networks on a one minute sound bite, or scioscia oh, there's been this event somewhere. oh, that's a. you never hear about it again. you don't know why this event took place. who were the actors in this event. no, you just get a quick snapshot of the latest disaster in the world. that isn't responsible news
casting. and not only we, latinos, blacks, minorities, but everyone in this country should demand more of our news media. there is so much more that needs to be known and told by the news media, then what we are getting. >> hector. >> [inaudible] what is happening in the tv is one of the examples, but if you want to analyze the data and everything so far, from presentation in the nation, study national organizations for latinos on the representation of latinos, 8%. look at how many is legislators we have in the nation.
that are not represented. what issue that was brought to attention by one of the members, the kennedy center to latinos in the nation. i haven't seen numbers like that. let team is our 185 at a time when the attacking, we need to really highlight positive contributions from every community. [inaudible] the key i think is together. if we don't demand, if we're not addressing this, you will keep hearing -- [inaudible] and before i finish something i want to put on the table because it's their important and i'm very worried about, there is something on the ground happening in the african-american and the latino community. i think this is the right moment to raise the issue. the possibly of certain -- on a
rising above communities against each other. we need to be smart brothers and sisters. we need to talk to each other and we need to have clear strategies to make sure move forward. >> being from texas i've been looking at that the last 20 years. in terms of houston, dallas versus it's been a, police chief, fire chief, african-american as well. i think it's now a rising of the state where the numbers are equalizing. i can tell you i've seen this in houston and dallas dating back really to the early 1990s. i'm going to go to questions but before do that, i want you to put your crystal ball, prost in the gator connection back -- prognosticator had to give me one issue that you hope will be brought up tomorrow night in the debate that likely will not be brought up. go down the line and each one. then i will come to you.
you have a question here. who else? all right. going to start ready. the issue that you think, you think you want to be brought up but like late will not come up and after the debate we will see who got it right. >> job creation. i think now be a lot of talk about about the specifics is what our voters want to hear about. >> i want you to be specific with your issue, not a general one. so now bailout. >> i think tomorrow it would be great to dive into the issue of energy and environmentalism, and the protection of our environment. i don't think are going to touch on to the level we should. and i'm sure that governor romney is not going to want to talk about how he was agreeing governor in massachusetts, which definitely is a flip-flop. >> tomorrow is the domestic policy debate. so go ahead.
>> i was going to go to the international affairs. i think they're not going to discuss how we can get african-americans more jobs. they're going to talk in general about jobs. but since we need jobs more, i think we should have more attention on it. >> all right. >> i think in this acronym is on the 400th murder in chicago just at the last couple of days, we will not talk about the tide between the youth unemployment numbers and how it's impacting oath of dropout rates and a crime we're seeing. >> i would like to see a real honest conversation that is essential for working working-class, was going to happen with collective bargaining. >> we talk a lot about -- >> i like that one last next that we talk a lot about the new small business economy, but african-americans, and i said all the time, our economy is not a mom and pop it is a mom or pop. we need to make sure that it's addressing the mom and pops in
argument, the one and business. >> hate speech and its relationship to hate crimes is not going to be discussed. is not going to be discussed even though we're losing a lot of people right and left. because of the fact that it infringes some on the first amendment. and even the president the other day went around the whole thing in terms of the muslim filbert our president saying something like that. and so they're not going to discuss it. >> ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. i don't think you'll hear those words tomorrow i. i think the whole idea, we realize at some point we will all have to contribute to solve our economic crisis, to solve our deficit. but you will hear either candidate asking their base to make any sacrifices. >> well, basically we may hear, we may hear something about the
border, the u.s.-mexico border, i feel pretty certain we won't hear that it is more than $1 billion a day in legitimate trade and how that helps our economy. spent i think you are going to hear lots about the middle class. you will not hear anything substantive when it comes to folks who are poor and in lower-class. anyone who uses those words i will be absolutely stunned. ad hocly jim blair will actually ask that. >> what is your question? >> when i covered the trayvon martin rally in d.c., you talked about outlook, and i've not heard about him to talk about. and they seem to be the crux of the issue to buy the election and avoid what you all are doing. >> and to answer that, i want to add onto that, how are you
dealing with groups that folks don't know about probably funded who are driving legislation because it's not just outlook, there are others as well. >> the first thing that i did was to drop my dealing doing business with certain companies as late as last friday, i got another one. i do then increment and encouraging all of our members to do the same with business they feel that are not doing, that's being unfair, trying to suppress the vote or people who are not with us on the trayvon martin and stand your ground case. so we're looking at all the companies in our organization. and i felt that i had to do it first and i informed my members of what i have dropped or stop doing business with. >> anybody else? >> we have pressured a lot of the things i can -- same things. without a lot of success. a lot of major companies have
now pulled out of their support of the crew. i think they've also, they've also i think avoided now taking a more social, i do know the what is a social concerns, but these more aggressive issues on race relations, immigration and things like that. i think they're trying to shy away from that now and move back towards more of the business focus that they said they had from the beginning. >> question? >> my question is to mr. mcalister. you mentioned how people should make sure that, people of color should make sure they rally around certain representatives where people are running for office, and make sure that they deal with their issues and put their money behind it. but how do you propose that certain communities do that when they are traditionally economically disadvantaged in general? i find it very --
>> who are you talk about? >> undock that people of color. we talked about the latino community, african-american communities. that's also the and asian-american community, native american community. how, where is the money going to come from for them to encourage these politicians to actually pay attention to them speak with right, especially with a report showing -- eyecatcher. >> -- eyecatcher. >> one, we do have power. we could redirect and make sure it goes towards the races we need need them to go towards. but as well, there have been enough movement over the last several years where we've seen underdog candidates end up winning elections without the money, without the name. we got a guy right there going up against a former first lady and a president is talking bad
about him in south carolina. he said in the white house right now. you people such as joe who is demonize by the democratic party, but he ended up winning with about $5000 in his war chest because of the tea party movement. .. when we start talking about money and when it comes to politics we've got to start speaking from where our power comes from which comes from within and comes from that we
did in the 40's, 50's and 60's we will get the results. we can't look so much on the money aspect. guess you need money with politics but you need money for when it comes to true policy. >> before the next question i have to ask the affordable care act will not come until 2014. in november you are going to see efforts to not fund most of those initiatives. how are you positioning your organizations and constituents to deal with that because just from law was one thing and now it is implementing law. >> we have done a lot in helping shape the legislation because let's face it, there was a lot of the date about it and a lot of difference of opinion, but we have been active in the legislative process of shaping the language of that legislation to the regulatory process.
that's something that we forget sometimes if you get ill law passed there are folks in the backroom figure out how they are going to write its implementation, something that initially looked good ends up not being that great, and we are going to continue to engage both in the supreme court the debate that has happened, but now going forward to how this is written law in different places. what we are seeing and it's not just the issue of health care, someone talked about state rights. we are seeing this very crazy dynamic talking about the role of the federal government and invoking the state rights when that is convenient but we are going to be a challenge now to be fighting a lot of battles in 50 different places, many that we had before thought of the federal level for standard implementation and that's going to happen with health care. >> we keep hearing about small
businesses. what are the members saying? >> i think there's a misunderstanding about it is education. small-business owners are saying i'm already being attacked. competition is fierce all over the country as well as across the borders. my margins are shrinking and now you are forcing me to take on an additional oregon and we are trying to have the conversation of okay you have to look past your small business and your community as far as your family and children and also understand the long-term ramifications this bill has and when you look at it from that perspective is a kind of conversation that we have had over the past and people can kind of buying into it. i think a lot of it has just been on the bad marketing this administration has done. >> some people walk around with employees freaking out.
>> what i haven't heard much about his religious and moral issues because we do this poll and you have your likely voters. how much deflation can be in the voter policy because you saw there was a dispute about putting god in the platform. there was a dispute about jerusalem being the capitol, and then the president's support of gay marriage. how many of the folks that go to church every sunday that are going to be like my goodness what did i do now? there are people who are actually thinking this. what are your thoughts? is there a bridge to that gap? >> there is the party to show religion in and there is an opportunity to move certain
voters. when you have an honest conversation with the hispanic community about religion and the republican mardy and democratic party and the example is i'm a democrat and latino because i believe that i believe in taking care of my fellow man and my fellow wollman and the democratic party looks at those issues how do we support the families in need and they say it makes sense to make that social of reach and support and on the republican side we look back on the issue of abortion. i think every devotee for latinos is that you are walking down the middle of the road with them when it comes to religion because of the tug of war. my mother-in-law knows what i do in terms of the democratic message being out there and supporting my president but she is a strong woman of faith and
she cannot be displayed or move when it comes to issues on abortion and she told me don't call me on election day but i anderson and because she's also volunteered and has done a lot in the community coming to help the community service programs. >> i think the parties are going to have to understand that to your point that israel so what is the issue of abortion but there is same-sex marriage, whether it is contraception, and also it's not also -- for instance they are extremely vocal when the issue of the health mandated contraception but the same strong catholic combination of, paul ryan's budget because of the cuts to the poor and it really comes back to what is the issue versus the party, and again i think a lot of political folks don't
understand you might have some folks that are going to be against you on this issue because it doesn't align with their face the they will support you in something else. >> you see it within the catholic church and the nuns on the bus. that import a lot of latinos that grew up with the nuns are around them and we have to stop the direction we are going it in power a lot of the latino communities. >> when it goes to political laziness and when you said it's one lever in the process and what are we going to do as black and brown communities moving forward to understand that if people can pull one or two and that's all they need to to do is lose all the bigger picture. we have to make sure that as new each leader evaluates what each party is doing let's not be persuaded by one issue or another in the vote and
subsequently 4/5 or 23 months of lawmaking and free engage when the campaign trail starts again. >> religion is not active in this campaign certainly has four years ago with the talk about his faith and the president hasn't necessarily wanted to force that conversation yet. so i think up until now there's been a remarkable little discussion about religion by both of these candidates. >> although it does crack me up when i say that religious stuff doesn't matter. after 9/11, every church, moscow, synagogue, if you have a building that looks like a cross on that it is absolutely. i would get a kick out of folks when they say that stuff doesn't matter but all of a sudden you lose your job and are broke as hell you are praying. [laughter] next question. >> i'm a professor at the
university in the district of columbia community college and i'm happy to say that several of my students are here. it came at the beginning of the discussion when we started with the voter suppression efforts that have gone on to and it was an opportunity and i'd like to continue that thought there's an opportunity and you have discussed in many different ways ways that institutional you've been fighting these efforts of the voter suppression. how do we translate this so that it becomes an ongoing and continuing effort to get individuals and communities as well to empower themselves both in terms of knowledge and activism so the voter suppression efforts don't affect them because -- and i respectfully understand that people are working very hard and democracy is also hard and
requires a lot of work. one of the things with 2008 he was able to take politics with twitter he was able to take the politics to facebook. you have an explosion it wasn't just rush limbaugh out there any more on talk radio. roland martin had a radio show that was followed up as well. other people need the politics cool devotee follow. of course with that said journalism all of a sudden became this form of what they used to call yellow journalism when they get a little bit of fact and a whole lot of opinion. we have to now control ourselves with the back you get a lot of opinion with this so as your sharing opinions and facts on twitter on facebook through
social media and the conversations of the day take it in and let it be a part of your daily conversation. let the issue that they're talking about on cnn or another network be something that you relate to your everyday life. when we did a college to work with politics 365 over august down in florida before and during the convention and the republicans we had a lot of students talk about the student loans and the policies of the florida legislature and the general assembly and how they were voting on that and how the governor scott had something to do with that. when the jury will to take politics and make it apply to 1920, 21-year-olds and let them talk about that in their own language, don't talk about them in the language of the legislation in everyday terms once we get our politics in to that level and start dealing with facts and that is when people start getting more partisan politics and it starts moving away from big money and the super pak.
in speaking about our responsibilities nationally to get our local association and local affiliates were involved, getting people locally involved so they know there is more than just before ury election of the president to teach them what they get or what they don't get as an e result of the commissioners and the state legislators and others. >> questions? >> from george mason university i would like to get extra credit. >> what is wrong with you? [laughter] >> certainly one of the ways to address these issues is to grow new and informed voters. focussing the standardized testing with language arts and matt is the only things that seem to matter so there's
history, social studies, science and not part -- >> don't forget band and trauma. >> for their informed citizens what can our organization do more about that? islamic school boards often times dictate the curriculums and what kind of history is being taught and if the teaching african american history starting with 1865 and abraham lincoln on through and that's all you get about the black folks and the latino history starts with i don't know, 2006. that is how some of these issues are being framed. you get these type of - out
there and you're wondering why your kids are not worried about this will involve or understand the history and why the need to be involved. it wasn't until the senator was in the united states senate he said before it was the first republican reconstruction and texas. the way the republicans took over the state of texas the first ran for the state board of education. democrats totally overlooked it. what they recognized was this was pure politics. they looked at the election and they saw how many it took to win the seats in the previous election. they ran their votes and got their votes and took over the state board of education and because of the number of textbooks with the loan of california, they can drive education for the rest of the nation. so that is why they saw the
uproar this year and they literally change the textbooks in texas to take out a lot of stuff dealing with slavery and dealing with other issues like i got what is going on? because they understood how you take the public policy and how you can affect the mind of the next generation and put them together and they caught the progress of liberals and democrats totally off guard. but that actually was the beginning of the republican takeover in texas, the actual state board of education. so i think a lot of people think -- >> no, you get low hanging fruit and you can have an impact on the race to the people and the last point if you study the most local school board races virtually nobody votes in those races. there are people literally in the major cities who are winning the school board races with 300 or 400 votes. and so, understand school members get five people you do not have a majority coming and for the business folks up here
to speak of as well, you also cannot determine bond programs and who gets the contract as well of the virtues on the school board. >> yet to be the spokesperson for the dream act, but it does have a provision where many more latinos will get a part of what they have to do to get a higher education so in our educational so recently the president put a lot more money into the african-american children to educate them. so i think we have to continue to ask our senators and insist our representatives and others do the same, because we have not had a lot of attention paid to education except in the state of the union the message the president paid a lot of attention to it. but we have to get our local people also not only in terms of the money, but what will be taught in schools, because a lot of the ignorance that we see is from people who didn't get very much schooling themselves or got the wrong kind of schooling.
>> i have to ask the group this as well when it comes to education we have seen this battle and we got the folks kicked off at the new teacher film coming out this weekend. we saw what happened in chicago in terms of the teachers' strike which cracked me up. i am the stand that logic. but also, it's interesting you have groups like student first. they say how can you be aligning with corporate reform, and the argument making is i believe the problem in this whole conversation is the being treated as an us versus them argument as opposed to there is no one way to educate child in america. a number two, i think that we are people who are absolutely afraid to talk about change because there has been a status
quo. so, how do we move this conversation toward say result oriented conversation as opposed to a protect my turf conversation. we talk about the education in the country because to your point is the and to be the battleground a local level because the whole deal how do you do corporate reform versus the testing versus all of these different examples. anybody can jump in. >> even in our conversation here it is you do this you might be from this party or if you do that, you must be for this ideology, and i think that, you know, look at folks in the latino community, and you can have different thoughts. >> don't put me in of these boxes. >> and the reality is just because you want teachers to be more accountable and better prepared to meet in the
classroom that doesn't mean that you are a union or if you believe that there should be more investment to make sure that we have good buildings with good textbooks it doesn't mean that you are on the principle and the school. at the end of the day there is going to be more focus on the actual children that are sitting on those tests and the reality is that because you talk about parents who need to have more responsibility and more involvement, it doesn't mean that then you are republican or something or that when we talk about parent responsibility a lot of people say well, there are systemic issues. those things are not mutually exclusive, right? and it is going to take a layering of those things. so, i think we have to challenge this notion that you have to be on a one track mind or a one track ideology in order to be right or wrong about an issue. and particularly on education
it's going to require creativity and testing a variety of things, because at the end of the day it is not just about the future of that child, if people want to talk about enlightened self-interest, it is about all of our futures right here. and right now what we have is not quite working. we do need more investment, but it's not necessarily all just about the money. it's going to take the parents, the teachers come the schools and the students. >> they've laid out two-thirds of the next generation largely minority children will not be able to do the jobs that we are going to have that particular time so now what do we do? and to your point you've got to be a republican because he supports vouchers. first of all i support public schools, private school, home-schooled, online, and i do believe what we have is an education conversation and on air force one with the president
in 2009i took exception to the amending the voucher program in d.c.. the president said well if all students could get vouchers i would support it. you support the schools and all students can't go to one. i went to a magnet school and you have to apply to get in, and i think a part of this is that's now a republican idea. to support the teachers' union that is a democratic idea, and i would challenge wife of a democrat running for congress twice and please, tell me what would you tell a parent with a kid that goes to school with a 95% failure rate? please explain to me what you would tell them why you want to keep things as they are versus total loud. anybody else? go right ahead.
>> i think you're absolutely right and we support the school reform and the common core standards. when we talk about six education perhaps it's all a bit harder to do the common core standards for those types of disciplines. another area that is missing is financial the education. succumbing to of the most important things in our daily lives are participation in the united states and a financial well-being. those are two things that we have to build more and make sure we actually have students that are at school participating in a council across the country. they have been engaged in civic life because they are going out even though many of them are not eligible to vote they are of the voter registration table. they learn about the importance of the vote and the importance of participating in the civic discourse, so that is the key. and we have to make the public schools by augmenting with the are doing that really help them
become fully a part of our system. >> and i support the 12th hour school day. [laughter] >> we've got to fit all of this in. [laughter] that's right. you're not in school. why are you worried? >> i've got grandkids. [laughter] >> okay. fine, 14. >> first of all - frank smith and i'm the director of the african-american museum and i want to welcome all of you here this evening. we are glad to hear you -- have you. first of all i was a city councilman in washington, d.c. for many years a local elected official. and when i looked at president obama's appointment to the supreme court, he has had to appointments, both women and one of them was hispanic. this is a brilliant move for a man that means that coalition to
get reelected. so i wanted to just get your response. they can go back to him and if he gets reelected you all know they are going to protect. the voting rights act what is your response to that? >> no guarantee. [laughter] >> the flip side to that is the initial response you have a debt limit that gave 96% of their votes and neither one of them or by the african-american women where you complain about clarence thomas. >> and they had a high rate in any other group in the country. >> there is something to be said about ignoring that vote especially when thurgood marshall was replaced by somebody that the black community has been hands off with and that is an understatement that you have got on the court 20 years ago so there has been an oversight.
>> exactly. there are two sides looking at that. it goes back to what we said before. going after the constituencies that you need. women working, white working women and latinos come in particularly latino. what happened to the african-american vote that was on fire not only getting into the presidency, but also winning the u.s. senate seat in 2000 for coming out of chicago. if you go back to the senate races, the last three black centers that you have had have come from illinois and they've come from chicago. where was the payback from that? there are two sides to that claim. >> clarissa? >> i hope i don't get in trouble for this. >> you won't. >> this kind of conversation somebody gives me it sometimes gives me heartburn particularly the conversation that come said -- during the redistricting process because it's partially least with this notion that only
latinos can represent latinos or only african-americans can represent african-americans, or this notion that because sotomayor was appointed to the court that now a latina vote is in the bag. i think that is very insulting to our community quite frankly. we believe very strongly that we want to see more latino elected officials, but not because that we think latino elected officials are the only ones that can speak to lower interest, but because we want to see latinos represented in every facet of american society commensurate with the numbers that we represent in the population. and guess what? many of them are going to have completely different opinions than mine, and that's fine, and that should be fine. but this notion that leases the conversation i think hurts our community. in 2010i think it was good news for latinos as a result of the
deflection that we saw the latinos candidates run successfully in the non-majority latino districts. again, demonstrating that they have the wherewithal to run successfully as candidates and be good candidates. and also the latino voters that were able to show that they were discerning and that is because there was a latino man on the ballot they didn't just block that name. i think that is good. so we continue to push for our society that reflects what our country really looks like. but at the same time, challenge the notion is because again, on the media that is what sometimes happens. if you get a commentator or if you get an african-american or latino that is like looking down your the latino issues expert. really? >> i just want to add one thing to that and that is justice sonya sotomayor is a whole new generation of latinos. but more importantly, this is
the most qualified supreme court nominee in 60 years. this woman passed in her profession and the criticism or the response after she was sworn in is there is your latino justice. she's not that smart. some clerks said she wasn't that good or she was temperamental. where was the conversation about her record in the media? the conversation was her being nominated in the first latina. what was the substance of power impeccable her record was as a judge in new york? >> if you did the same thing already? you heard the newscasters talking about tomorrow night he will probably be arrogant and he has to watch out. when is the last time you heard anybody say the word here against with any other person that is in a high-level position i do think that we need to have
images of all of us out there and that's why i have been pushing towards the next one because we did that with sojourner truth. there were no african-american women in the united states capitol, so we put one there. we worked really hard to get her there and we brought truth to the capitol in other words. they have a portrait there. that's important when young black children walk through their. all right, we agree. >> we have to also think about the advocates perspective. what did the president think blacks he did get a huge percentage of the african-american vote and a good percentage of the latino vote but he didn't win on those alone he also got a sizable percentage of the minority vote and that is why he didn't see one in a landslide. so i think what he did when he came into office is i could just do something for theom